Dear Dirk Eibach,
Dear Wolfgang,
...
#define BASE_WIDTH 32 @@ -38,12 +44,18 @@ enum { REG_CONTROL = 0x0010, REG_MPC3W_CONTROL = 0x001a,
- REG_EXT_INTERRUPT = 0x001c,
- REG_EXT_INTERRUPT_ENABLE = 0x001e,
- REG_IIC_WRITE_MAILBOX = 0x0030,
- REG_IIC_WRITE_MAILBOX_EXT = 0x0032,
- REG_IIC_READ_MAILBOX = 0x0034,
- REG_IIC_READ_MAILBOX_EXT = 0x0036, REG_VIDEOCONTROL = 0x0042,
- REG_OSDVERSION = 0x0100,
- REG_OSDFEATURES = 0x0102,
- REG_OSDCONTROL = 0x0104,
- REG_XY_SIZE = 0x0106,
- REG_VIDEOMEM = 0x0800,
- REG_OSDVERSION = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_BASE + 0x0000,
- REG_OSDFEATURES = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_BASE + 0x0002,
- REG_OSDCONTROL = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_BASE + 0x0004,
- REG_XY_SIZE = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_BASE + 0x0006,
- REG_VIDEOMEM = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_MEM,
This has a certain smell to me - it smells like device accesses based on a base + offset notation, which is not waht we want to see. Why don't you use proper C structs instead to describe your devices?
yup, got me. I know you prefer C struct based register access while we don't. I'm sure anyone has excellent reasons for his opinion, and I don't want to start a discussion here which would probably lead nowhere. So, if you insist, I will convert our code to C struct based access. Maybe you could point me to a nice clean implementation in u-boot, so I can use the semantics you prefer (e.g. how holes in address space are labeled).
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Cheers Dirk